City of Little Rock v. Circuit Court of Pulaski County
2017 Ark. 219
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Malone sued the City of Little Rock and LRPD officials for gender discrimination and retaliation; trial was scheduled for May 4–6, 2016 with discovery deadlines tied to a pretrial date.
- City counsel filed multiple motions to continue between Feb and Apr 2016 citing counsel’s medical issues and the need to review discovery from related cases; the circuit court denied continuances and later found willful noncompliance with the scheduling order.
- On April 25, 2016 the circuit court concluded the City violated Ark. R. Civ. P. 11, imposed a $10,000 monetary sanction payable within ten days, and ordered payment as a condition of continued litigation.
- The City moved to set aside and to stay the sanction; the motions were denied. The City paid the $10,000 on May 12, 2016 and the court nevertheless held a show-cause hearing and entered a May 20, 2016 order finding the City in contempt for late payment.
- The circuit court conditioned purging contempt on specified CLE hours for the city attorney and threatened striking the City’s answer/default liability if not complied with; the City appealed both orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Malone) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether April 25 Rule 11 sanction valid | Sanction was proper for willful failure to comply with scheduling order and repeated continuance filings | Sanction improper: Rule 11 does not authorize punishment for requested continuances and court failed to follow Rule 11 procedures | Appeal as to April 25 order dismissed as moot because City voluntarily paid the $10,000 sanction; court did not review merits of that order |
| Whether May 20 contempt finding was proper | Contempt proper because City failed to pay within ten days as ordered | Contempt improper because underlying Rule 11 order was invalid and City’s payment/efforts were coerced; also argued improper attribution to city attorney | Affirmed: contempt finding sustained (civil contempt) because City disobeyed the April 25 order and the appeal from that order was mooted by payment |
| Whether payment of sanction moots appeal of underlying order | N/A | Payment was voluntary, so appeal is moot; no supersedeas sought | Payment was voluntary (no supersedeas, check tendered to avoid contempt) — appeal from April 25 order dismissed as moot |
| Whether court had authority/notice to impose monetary Rule 11 sanction | N/A | Circuit court lacked subject-matter authority or at minimum failed to provide Rule 11’s required show-cause and notice for monetary sanctions | Majority declined to adjudicate jurisdictional complaints because appeal was mooted by payment; dissent would reverse and vacate for lack of authority and deficient notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds Health Care Servs., Inc. v. HMNH, Inc., 364 Ark. 168, 217 S.W.3d 797 (2005) (payment of a judgment may moot an appeal unless payment was involuntary; availability of supersedeas is a key factor)
- Conlee v. Conlee, 370 Ark. 89, 257 S.W.3d 543 (2007) (an appeal from a contempt order does not permit collateral review "behind" the underlying order on which contempt is based)
- Omni Holding & Dev. Corp. v. 3D.S.A., Inc., 356 Ark. 440, 156 S.W.3d 228 (2004) (standard of review for civil contempt is whether the trial court’s finding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence)
- Young v. Young, 316 Ark. 456, 872 S.W.2d 856 (1994) (appeal from a final order brings up intermediate orders that necessarily affect the judgment)
- Thompson v. State, 2016 Ark. 383, 503 S.W.3d 62 (2016) (post-contempt completion of a sentence does not necessarily moot appellate review in certain contexts)
- Standridge v. State, 2014 Ark. 515, 452 S.W.3d 103 (2014) (discusses limits of subject-matter jurisdiction where a court convicts under a statute that does not authorize the charged conduct)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 343 Ark. 186, 33 S.W.3d 492 (2000) (recognizes that a successful, legitimate challenge to the validity of an underlying order can be considered in a contempt appeal)
- Ivy v. Keith, 351 Ark. 269, 92 S.W.3d 671 (2002) (distinguishes civil from criminal contempt by the character of relief; improper criminal contempt sanctions can be plain abuse of discretion)
- Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Newby, 2014 Ark. 280, 437 S.W.3d 119 (2014) (discusses appealability of certain nonfinal orders and available remedies)
- Jonesboro Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Eaton-Moery Envtl Servs., Inc., 2011 Ark. 501, 385 S.W.3d 797 (2011) (acts in excess of subject-matter jurisdiction are void and unenforceable)